which Protest the charges against him are distinctly stated. This also should be read with care; and I have thought it right not to lose a moment in giving it as wide a circulation as it is in my power to give it; because it appears to me, that the matter is of the greatest importance to us all; or, at least, to all those who wish to see the English constitution not totally annihilated.

From the same motive it is, that I am now induced to add some observations of my own, by which I hope to make the matter so plain as not to leave the smallest chance of being misunderstood.

There were two occasions mentioned by Lord Grey, and some confusion of dates and other circumstances has been made for want of a sort of history of each. The first was in 1801, at the time Mr. ADDINGTON (now LORD SIDMOUTH) became Prime Minister; the second was in 1804, he being still Prime Minister. The transactions, connected with the former we will treat of hereafter; for, if possible, they are even more important than those connected with the latter. But, at present, we will confine ourselves to the latter epoch; and, it will be useful, here, to give a list of the Ministry, as it then stood, namely, in February, March, and April, 1804, when the King was afflicted, as will be seen by Dr. HEBERDEN'S evidence, with the very same malady that he now is afflicted with.

Cabinet Ministers.

Duke of Portland

Lord Eldon

Lord Westmoreland

President of the Council.
Lord High Chancellor.

Lord Privy Seal.

Right Hon. Henry Addington (now fFirst Lord of the Treasury and Chan

Lord Sidmouth).

Earl St. Vincent

Earl of Chatham

...

....

Right Hon. Charles Yorke

Lord Hawkesbury (now Earl of Liverpool)

cellor of the Exchequer. (Prime Mi-
nister.)

First Lord of the Admiralty.
Master-General of the Ordnance.

Sec. of State for the Home Department.

{Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Lord Hobart (now Earl of Buckingham- [ Secretary of State for the Department

shire)

Lord Viscount Castlereagh

of War and the Colonics. J President for the Board of Control for

the Affairs of India.

Law Officers.

Sir Thomas Manners Sutton

Mr. Spencer Perceval

Attorney-General.
Solicitor-General.

Thus was the ministry composed. Here we have them all before us. This is of great use, because the people are apt to forget. They have confused ideas of who and who were together.

Well, now to the point. Dr. HEBERDEN, being upon his oath before the Lords' Committee, on the 18th of December last, gave the following evidence :

"Will Dr. Heberden state to the Committee what was the whole duration of "his Majesty's illness in 1804 ?--I was first called upon to attend his Majesty "on the 12th of February 1801; and I believe his Majesty presided at Council "on the 23rd of April following; I should consider the interval between those "periods as constituting the duration of his disease at that time.

"At what time did Dr. Heberden's attendance on his Majesty cease?-After "the period when his Majesty was so far recovered as to be able to transact "business at any period of any day he still retained such marks of indisposition "about him, as made it expedient that some one of his physicians should be

"about his person for some months afterwards. In this situation I was in at"tendance upon his Majesty so late as to the end of October.

"Between the 12th of February and the 23rd of April did not the appearances "of disorder continue more or less?-I believe that for some days previous to the "23rd of April they had so far ceased as to make his Majesty's physicians con"ceive him competent to exercise all the usual functions of his high office."

Thus, then, quibble to eternity, if you will, one of these two things must be; either the King was in a state of mental derangement (for that is the term now given to the malady) from the 12th of February to within some days of the 23rd of April, or Dr. HEBERDEN has taken a false oath, which latter is not to be believed, especially as, in the reports of the speeches of Lord Eldon, in answer to Lord Grey's charge, no insinuation of the kind was thrown out, and, as Dr. HEBERDEN gave his evidence in the presence of Lord Eldon and Lord Sidmouth, and most of the rest of the ministry of 1804, who might, if they had chosen, have contradicted or cross-examined him.

The public must well remember, that, in 1804, Dr. SIMMONS of St. Luke's Hospital, and his men, attended the King; and Lord Grey asserted, and challenged contradiction, that these persons remained with him until the 10th of June of that year! Nobody accepted Lord Grey's challenge. Nobody attempted to contradict him. But, I will, if the reader chooses, leave this circumstance wholly out of consideration; and stick to the facts stated upon oath by Dr. HEBERDEN, according to whom the King's malady continued from the 12th of February to within some days of the 23rd of April.

Now, then, what can have been meant by the words some days?" The hypocrite, who writes in the COURIER, says it may mean any time: any length of time; that it may mean a fortnight, at least." But, is this the interpretation that sound sense and a love of truth and justice will allow of?

No it is clear, that Dr. Heberden meant a few days; some number within a week but, even in those days, his words by no means admit, that the King was perfectly recovered; and, after all, we find that the Doctor, or another physician, had to remain constantly about him even to the month of October afterwards, on account of the still remaining appearances of indisposition.

Leaving out of the question, therefore, Earl Grey's uncontradicted assertion as to the attendance of Dr. SIMMONS and his men, until the 10th of June, Dr. HEBERDEN's evidence is full as to the point, that the malady continued from the 12th of February to the 23rd of April.

What, then, was done during this time, in the name of the King, and as by his express authority? Whether any commissions may have been granted, any leases of crown-lands let or renewed, any titles or honours bestowed, any sentences of death confirmed, during that time, are particulars that I have not, at hand, the means of ascertaining; but, I have the means of ascertaining in what cases the very highest functions of royalty, the giving assent to Acts of Parliament, the making of laws, affecting the property, liberty, and lives of fifteen millions of people, were exercised, and these I shall accurately state.

Remember, that the space of time mentioned by Dr. HEBERDEN, was, from the 12th of February to the 23rd of April, 1804.

On the 9th of March of that year, the King's assent was given by Commission under his hand, and signed with the great seal, to seven public

Acts of Parliament, being the Acts from Chapter 19 to Chapter 25 of the 44th year of GEORGE III.

On the 23rd of March, the King's assent was, by a like Commission, given to six public Acts of Parliament, being the Acts from Chapter 26 to Chapter 31.

This was still very far from the 23rd of April. It was more than some days. It was more than the fortnight which the hypocrite of the COURIER Contends for. It was, in fact, a full Calendar month.

The Acts thus assented to were some of them of a nature peculiarly important. Some of them contained penalties of death; others imposed taxes; others authorised the raising of soldiers; one was a continuation of the Bank Restriction; Chapter 25 granted away from the Crown the fee for ever of certain manors, lands, and houses; and Chapter 30 was a bill of indemnity, relative to acts done without law, in pursuance of certain Orders of Council.

All this was done in the King's name, and as by his express authority, at a time when, according to the evidence now given upon oath by a physician who attended him, the King was in the same state of incapacity that he is now.

Nay, on the 26th of March, that is to say, twenty-eight days before the 23rd of April, Mr. ADDINGTON (now Lord Sidmouth) brought down to the House of Commons A MESSAGE from the King! It related to a measure of great importance, namely, the bringing of the Irish militia into England. It had the royal signature to it, and began in these words: "His Majesty thinks proper to acquaint the House of Commons, &c. &c." This, even this, was done on the 26th of March, that is, twenty-eight days before the 23rd of April.

And yet, with these facts before us; with all this before us, we are not to be allowed to express our opinion, that great caution ought to be used in the resumption of the royal authority by the King; we are not to be allowed to say, that care ought to be taken to prove that he is quite well first; we are not to do this, upon pain of being marked out by the impudent and venal editor of the COURIER, as men who wish to dethrone the King, to throw him into a corner, to pluck the crown from his head and to bind it with thorns! But these are the last struggles of knavery and hypocrisy combined; and they will not succeed.

Thus stands the case up to the 23rd of April. I beg the reader to bear the dates in his mind. Thus stands the case up to the 23rd of April; but, as the reader may attach great importance to the assertion of Lord Grey respecting the attendance of Dr. SIMMONS and his men till the 10th of June, it is proper to inform him, that, between the 23rd of April and the 10th of June, 24 public Acts of Parliament received the King's assent by Commission, as in the former cases. And, by the 30th of July, 36 more public Acts; thus making the number 91 Acts, receiving the King's assent, by Commission, after the 12th of February in that year; and, July, the reader will bear in mind, was still long before the month of October.

There are still some circumstances to notice, in order to make the history of these transactions complete. A change of ministry took place between the 23rd of April and the 10th of June.

Mr. Addington, Lord St. Vincent, Mr. Yorke, and Lord Hobart, went out of the cabinet; and Mr. Pitt, Lord Melville, Lord Harrowby, Lord Camden, and Lord Mulgrave came into it. The others remained; and

the law-officers also remained. This change was completed on the 18th of May so that Lords Eldon, Castlereagh, Hawkesbury,, Westmorland, and Chatham were in both cabinets.

Nothing more need be said. The thing is so plain; the chain of facts so complete; the statement so incontrovertible, that it sets all pettifogging at defiance. There are, however, two points, upon which I shall just say a word or two; namely, the declaration of Mr. ADDINGTON (now Lord Sidmouth), during the King's malady in 1804; and the individual responsibility of Lord Eldon

As to the former, it was called forth by a question, and afterwards a motion, of Sir ROBERT LAWLEY, in the House of Commons, on the 27th of February, 1804. Sir Robert Lawley asked the minister for an explicit statement as to the state of the King. To this Mr. Addington answered, that no such statement was necessary in the opinion of his Majesty's confidential servants. Whereupon Sir Robert Lawley moved an adjournment of the House. This produced a long debate, which was very interesting at that time, and certainly not less so now. In this debate Mr. Addington spoke no less than five times. He made explanation upon explanation; and at last it came to these words:

"The hon. Gentleman has stated, that I have set up my own opinion "in opposition to that of his Majesty's Physicians. All I can say on "this part of the accusation against me is, that I have stated nothing as "matter of speculation, or opinion, of my own, but upon authority of "the physicians. I wish to be distinctly understood here to re-state, that there is not, at this time," [27th of February mind] "any necessary suspension of such royal functions as it may be necessary for his Majesty to discharge at the present moment.”

66

He was pressed further by Mr. Grey, and he then said: I meant distinctly to state, that there is not at this time, any necessary suspen"sion of the royal authority for any act which may be necessary to be "done."

This was what Lord Grey alluded to the other night; and, if it had any meaning at all, it meant one of these three things: that it was not necessary that the King should be deranged in mind; or, that it was not, at that time, necessary for him to have the use of his senses; or, that his faculties were not so much impaired as to render him unfit for business.

The two former it cannot be supposed that any man could mean; and, therefore, we must take the latter; and, then, all we have to do, is, to compare it with the Evidence of Dr. Heberden.

I should now enter upon the subject of individual or collective responsibility; but as my space is so narrow, and as I see, that the subject will demand room, I must defer it till my next.

State Prison, Newgate, Friday,
February 1, 1811.

WM. COBBETT.

9

KING'S ILLNESS.-THE REGENCY.- - Continued.

(Political Register, February, 1811.)

THIS subject is now drawing towards a close; but, like most other pieces of the kind, it grows more and more interesting, or, at least, more and more curious. The people, in general, appear to be resolved to be merely spectators; but, at any rate, let us hope, that they will well observe, and bear in mind what passes. The scenes now exhibiting are wholly without an equal. They have the decided merit of originality; though, it must be confessed, that they are not calculated to excite surprise in the reflecting mind, seeing that they are the natural produce of the system that has existed for the last 26 years.

I shall, in this article, begin again with some observations upon the writings of the venal man of the COURIER, who, in the passage that I am about to quote, has actually verified the soundness of the opinion expressed by me, in a previous article, respecting praises of the King, brought forward in support of an argument against his son, and, indeed, against the rights and liberties of the people.

I there observed, that it was base in the extreme, and that it was always so, to introduce, in the way of argument, praises of those whom no man dared attack; and, on the praises of whom no man dared put a negative.

And what answer does the venal man give to this? How does he attempt to refute me? You shall hear :

"RESTRICTIONS ON CALUMNY.-The Weekly Register, of Wednesday, " contains a passage plainly avowing how much it would contradict all the praises of the King, and hold him up to execration upon a re"view of his conduct, if it dared, if it was not restrained by the fear of the law. This passage is written too no doubt by the Editor of the Weekly Register, who two years ago publicly and personally at a County Meeting at Winchester, praised the King to the skies on "account of his amiable qualities, whether viewed as a man or as a "king. Most honest and consistent Editor of the Weekly Register!"

Now, what an answer is this! Thus, you see, that I was either to admit his argument, founded on praises of the King; I was to admit it, expressly or tacitly; or, I was to be charged with a wish to hold the King up to public execration; and that I was only restrained from so doing by a dread of the law. This is the way, in which this venal man answers an argument. His language, and that of the whole of the hypocritical tribe, to which he belongs, is, in fact, this: "We rest our con"clusions upon the assertion of the virtues of the King; we say, that "this or that ought to be done, or not to be done, because the King has "such and such virtues; if you contradict us, you are calumniators of "the King; and if you refuse to assent to our assertions upon which our conclusions are grounded by waving the discussion, you prove, that you would hold the King up to public execration if you dared." This is, in fact their language; so that there is no escaping them. They

61